CITY OF TAMPA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The City of Tampa sought certiorari review of a circuit court decision invalidating its ordinance annexing approximately 11,000 acres in Northeast Hillsborough County. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court's determination that the annexation violated Florida statutory requirements for contiguity, compactness, and enclave creation.
The trial judge correctly applied the law in finding the annexation ordinance invalid. The ordinance failed to meet statutory requirements because the annexed area was not contiguous to the city's boundaries, was not reasonably compact, and would create unincorporated enclaves of county land, all violations of section 171.044(1) and (5).
[1] A county is a party affected by a municipal annexation plan if it is a governmental unit with jurisdiction over the area to be annexed.
[2] A party seeking certiorari review of an annexation plan must demonstrate a belief that it will suffer material injury by reason of the municipality's failure to meet stat…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the scope of review by this court of an appellate decision of the circuit court is limited to determining whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law”
Establishes the standard of review for appellate certiorari petitions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Tampa adopted an ordinance annexing approximately 11,000 acres in Northeast Hillsborough County pursuant to petitions from property owners…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contiguity cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Chief Judge.
Hillsborough County filed in the circuit court a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to invalidate a City of Tampa ordinance annexing approximately 11,000 acres in Northeast Hillsborough County. The ordinance was adopted pursuant to the petitions of several property owners requesting voluntary annexation of that area. The trial judge granted certiorari review, found the ordinance invalid for failure to follow the essential requirements of section 171.-044, Florida Statutes (1985), and quashed the ordinance. The City has filed a petition in this court for writ of certiorari to review the action of the trial judge.
Both parties recognize that the scope of review by this court of an appellate decision of the circuit court is limited to determining whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and applied the correct law. City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla.1982). There being no procedural due process issue raised here, our sole inquiry is whether the trial judge applied the correct principles of law. We hold that he did, and deny the City’s petition.
Section 171.081, Florida Statutes (1985), provides that any party affected who believes that he will suffer material injury by reason of the failure of a municipality to meet the requirements established for annexation as they apply to his property may file a petition in circuit court for certiorari review of the annexation plan. Hillsborough County is a party affected because it is a governmental unit with jurisdiction over the area to be annexed. § 171.031(5). Additionally, Hillsborough County is the owner of 106.7 acres of land included in the annexation area. The trial judge was satisfied that the county demonstrated a belief that it would suffer a material injury, and the record supports that determination.
In his final order the trial judge found that the City’s ordinance failed to meet the requirements for a voluntary annexation plan because the area to be annexed was not contiguous to the boundaries of the City and was not reasonably compact, as required by section 171.044(1). Additionally, the trial judge found that the annexation would create enclaves of unincorporated county land, which is forbidden by section 171.044(5). See City of Sunrise v. Broward County, 473 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We have examined the record provided to us by the parties and find that it supports these conclusions of the trial judge.
Accordingly, having found that the trial judge applied the correct principles of law, ,we deny the City’s petition for writ of certiorari.
Petition for writ of certiorari denied.
SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Sanford v. Seminole Cnty., 538 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989)…ine patterns.” The City appeals this order. Review in a district court of appeal of an order of the circuit court quashing by certiorari an annexation ordinance is by way of petition for writ of certiorari. See City of Tampa v. Hillsborough County, 504 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); City of Sunrise v. Broward County, 473 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); City of Lake Mary v. County of Seminole, 419 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Appellate review in this case is limited to determining whether the circuit cour…
-
Matlacha Civic Assoc., Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 273 So. 3d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…their belief that they will suffer material injury from the City's unlawful annexation, and this was sufficient to afford them the right to pursue their statutory right to seek review of the annexation. See City of Tampa v. Hillsborough County, 504 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (explaining that the trial court applied the correct principles of law when it based its standing determination on the fact that the petitioner demonstrated a belief that it would suffer a material injury).1 The trial court…
-
Burton v. City of Belle Glade, 966 F. Supp. 1178 (S.D. Fla. 1997)…ompactness Requirements of Section 171 Since 1974, it has been the law in Florida that municipalities may only “annex contiguous, compact, [and] incorporated territory.” Fla.Stat. § 171.0413; see also, City of Tampa v. Hillsborough County, 504 So.2d 10 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (affirming Circuit Court’s invalidation of city’s annexation of noncontiguous area); c.f. City of Sanford v. Seminole County, 538 So.2d 113 (Fla. 5th *1183 DCA 1989) (reversing Circuit Court’s invalidation of proposed…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1982)
- City OF Sunrise v. Broward Cnty., 473 So. 2d 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)